set_device_volume

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does supply one real behavioral fact: the tool requires the native audiod daemon. However, it omits failure behavior when the daemon is absent, whether the operation is reversible or affects mute state, and permission requirements. The prerequisite is valuable but the disclosure is thin for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the scoping distinction front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key environmental prerequisite. It lacks any indication of error behavior or return effect, but no output schema is expected and nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (device_name, level with its 0-100 range) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a 'specific device' and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set volume on a specific device') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_volume by noting it targets a named device rather than the default. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the parenthetical scoping makes the intended operation unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '(not just the default)' gives clear context for when to choose this tool over the default-volume variant, effectively routing the agent. It stops short of explicitly naming set_volume or stating exclusions/conditions, so it does not reach a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.